Bonnell v. Beach

• Decision Date: 03 October 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-008
• Citation: 408 F.Supp.3d 733
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: Benjamin BONNELL, Plaintiff, v. Col. Robert R. BEACH, et al., Defendants.

408 F.Supp.3d 733

Benjamin BONNELL, Plaintiff,

v.Col. Robert R. BEACH, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-008

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.

Signed October 3, 2019

James Broome Thorsen, Jesse Andrew Roche, ThorsenAllen, LLP, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff.

Blaire Hawkins O'Brien, Jacqueline Cook Hedblom, Tara Lynn Renee Zurawski, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert E. Payne, Senior United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Col. Robert R. Beach ("Beach") and Rachel S. Whitehead's ("Whitehead") MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 45). Because Beach is no longer a party to this case, the Court will deny as moot the motion with respect to Beach. For the reasons set forth below, the motion with respect to Whitehead will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a physical altercation that occurred, on February 2, 2018, between Benjamin Bonnell ("Bonnell") and Ieuan Phillips ("Phillips") in a dormitory at Longwood University, a state-owned and -operated university. After that altercation and based on a Criminal Complaint filed by Whitehead, Bonnell was charged in state court with felony malicious wounding under Va. Code § 18.2-51 (the "malicious wounding statute"). This charge terminated shortly thereafter in Bonnell's favor by nolle prosequi.

Whitehead is employed as a member of Longwood University Police Department. It is undisputed that, at all relevant times, Whitehead was acting under color of state law and in the course of her employment as a Longwood University Police Officer.

Proceeding in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,¹ Bonnell alleges in COUNT I that Whitehead violated his right, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to be free from an unreasonable seizure by maliciously swearing out a Criminal Complaint seeking Bonnell's arrest for the crime of malicious wounding (said to be a violation of Va. Code § 18.2-51 ) and thereby maliciously securing his arrest and prosecution. In COUNT II, Bonnell alleges that Beach defamed him. (ECF No. 1.) On August 6, 2019, Whitehead and Beach filed a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 45), which is the subject of this opinion. That same day, the Court denied Whitehead's motion to dismiss and granted Beach's motion to dismiss less than two weeks later. (ECF No. 44; ECF No. 49.)

The parties have taken discovery. The record on this Motion consists of declarations from Whitehead, Beach, and R. Stuart Raybold; various exhibits, including primarily written witness statements, body camera footage, photographs, emails, written reports regarding the altercation, and the Criminal Complaint; and cited deposition testimony offered by each side. There are some undisputed facts, but there are some genuine disputes of material fact. It is thus necessary to outline the general factual circumstances that gave rise to the case, and, in so doing, to accord Bonnell the benefit of all reasonable inferences. And, because of the nature of the claim in COUNT I, it is necessary to understand the statements that the witnesses gave to Whitehead before she swore out the Criminal Complaint charging Bonnell with malicious wounding.

According to the summary judgment record, there were two witnesses (Phillips and Bonnell) who actually participated in the altercation, and one witness, another Longwood student, Carie Sutliff ("Sutliff"), who saw it.² The following general recitation of facts is taken largely from the evidence given by those witnesses with firsthand knowledge.

A. The Altercation

The events giving rise to this case arise out of interactions between Bonnell and Phillips, who at the time were suitemates at Longwood. (ECF No. 63 at ¶¶ 4-5.) On February 2, 2018, Phillips and Bonnell had bickered throughout the day. The altercation at the core of this case ensued after the latest exchange of words. Following that exchange, Sutliff directed Bonnell to "cool off" in her suite. (ECF No. 51-12 at 1.) Bonnell followed that advice and left Phillips behind at the suite that the two shared.

While walking with Sutliff toward her room and away from Phillips, Bonnell told Sutliff that he "[s]ometimes ... wish[ed he] could throw a bottle at his [Phillip's] head." (Id. ) Phillips said that, although he heard Bonnell say "something" to Sutliff, he "didn't know what [Bonnell] said." (ECF No. 51-11 at 1.) Phillips, who is much bigger than Bonnell, then pursued Bonnell into Sutliff's suite, "push[ing Sutliff] out of the way to get to [Bonnell]." (ECF No. 51-12 at 1.) That much is not disputed. Nor is it disputed that, after Phillips cornered Bonnell in Sutliff's suite, Bonnell and Phillips continued to argue loudly and in close quarters in Sutliff's suite.

During her investigation, Whitehead received information about what happened next. There was some conflict between Phillips and Bonnell's views about who engaged in what posturing once Phillips entered Sutliff's suite.³ However, considering all of the evidence given by the three witnesses with firsthand knowledge (and, according Bonnell the benefit of all reasonable references), it seems clear that Whitehead had conclusive evidence that Phillips was the aggressor in the altercation that ensued in Sutliff's suite.⁴ The record also shows that Whitehead had conclusive evidence that Phillips initiated physical contact with Bonnell by putting his left hand on Bonnell's neck, picking him up, and pushing him into a closet where Bonnell's head struck a sharp object and was cut. (ECF No. 51-11 at 1; ECF No. 51-10 at 1-2.)

Whitehead was also aware, and Phillips' witness statement confirms, that he "picked [Bonnell] up by the neck" and "slammed [him] into the closet." (ECF No. 51-10 at 1; ECF No. 51-11 at 1.) She also knew that, as a result, Bonnell's head hit a metal clothing bar, which cut his head and caused significant bleeding. (ECF No. 51-10 at 1-2.) Phillips himself concedes that he "used [his] left hand and pushed [Bonnell] into the locker around the neck still holding him there" before "[throwing] him to the ground." (ECF No. 51-11 at 1.) It is undisputed that Phillips then picked Bonnell off the floor and again threw him to the ground.

According to Phillips, while Bonnell was on the ground, he picked up a bottle and threw it at Phillips. Phillips ducked, and the bottle struck Sutliff on the side of her head. (ECF No. 51-10 at 1-2; ECF No. 51-11 at 1-2; ECF No. 51-12 at 1-2.) Indeed, there is no real dispute that Whitehead knew that, when Bonnell threw the bottle, he was on the ground or trying to get up after having been violently attacked by Phillips, a much larger man.⁵

In many cases the extent of Sutliff's injuries ordinarily would not play much of a role in the probable cause determination, but it is pertinent to the analysis in this case because an element of malicious wounding is the intent to permanently maim, disfigure, or disable. Sutliff's injury is also pertinent for the additional reasons that: (1) Sutliff did not seek medical care for her injuries, (upon the advice of her mother who is a nurse); and (2) contrary to the assertion by Whitehead in the Criminal Complaint, none of the witnesses stated that Sutliff blacked out or had a "large hole" in her head. (See, e.g., ECF No. 51-12 at 2 (Sutliff's written statement explaining that she "started bleeding from the split in [her] head"); ECF No. 51-10 (not stating that Sutliff blacked out); ECF No. 51-11 (same).) Indeed, in her Incident Report, Whitehead did not claim that Sutliff blacked out and described Sutliff's head wound as a "large gash," not a "hole in her head." (ECF No. 51-6 at 3.) Nonetheless, in the Criminal Complaint, Whitehead told the Magistrate that Sutliff "has a large hole in the back side of her skull" and that Sutliff had "black[ed] out" when the bottle hit her. (ECF No. 51-13 at 1.) In thusly reciting the nature of Sutliff's wound, Whitehead offered a statement addressed to the specific intent element of malicious wounding (with intent to permanently maim, disfigure, disable, or kill).⁶

Also, there is credible evidence that, at the outset of her investigation, Whitehead jumped to the conclusion that Bonnell had committed the crime of malicious wounding based largely, if not solely, on a photograph of Sutliff's wound. And, she did that, even though, immediately before doing so, Sutliff had told Whitehead that the wound did not require stitches and that this medical advice had come from Sutliff's mother, a practicing hospital nurse, who had seen the picture of the cut.

Thus, the evidence about the nature of Sutliff's wound is pertinent to: (1) assessing the validity of what Whitehead said in the Criminal Complaint about the specific intent element of the crime of malicious wounding; and (2) determining whether Whitehead intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth told the Magistrate that Sutliff had a "hole in the back side of her skull" and had "blacked out" when the record shows clearly that no such evidence was known to Whitehead when she swore out the Criminal Complaint.

B. The Investigation

Whitehead's investigation of the altercation between Phillips and Bonnell began three days after the fact because none of the people involved called the Longwood Police Department on the evening of February 2 when it occurred, a fact that would suggest to Whitehead that neither Bonnell, Phillips, nor Sutliff considered the events to be serious. In fact, the record shows that the Longwood Police Department was called by the building custodial service after one of Sutliff's suite members called that service to get dried blood off the floor.

According to the record on summary judgment, Whitehead interviewed Sutliff, Phillips, and Bonnell in that order.⁷ Those interviews were recorded on a body camera that Whitehead wore.⁸ On February 6, 2018, Sutliff, Phillips, and Bonnell gave witness statements. These video and written statements...